(screen whooshes) - [Anna] A pair of congressional bills seek to stop meat processors from marketing foreign beef as a US product.

- Not having COOL only benefits the big four packers.

- [Anna] Plus, Montana school districts are exploring the potential mental health benefits of restricting cell phone use.

- Kids are getting on average like 250+ notifications a day.

(screen whooshes) - From the campuses of Montana State University, Bozeman, and the University of Montana, Missoula, you're watching Impact.

Those stories are up next, stay with us.

- [Announcer] Major funding for Impact comes from the Greater Montana Foundation, encouraging communication on issues, trends, and values of importance to Montanans.

Funding also comes from viewers like you, who are friends of Montana PBS.

Thank you.

Impact is an editorially independent production of Montana PBS Reports.

Coverage decisions are made by our team of Montana-based journalists.

For feedback, questions, or ideas, email us, impact@montanapbs.org.

(pensive music) (screen whooshes) - Welcome to Impact.

I'm Anna Rau.

For years, some cattle ranchers have complained that large beef packing companies have been selling some beef products with a USA label when they're actually foreign beef or a mixture of US and foreign beef.

Now Congress is looking to end that practice.

Montana PBS's AJ Williams spoke with Montana producers and processors about their take on these efforts.

I know there's two bills in Congress, but you're focusing specifically on the House bill.

What would that one do?

- Right.

So the Country of Origin Labeling Enforcement Act, or COOL, would require those companies to label their beef where it was born, raised, and processed.

And it would also fine those companies if they mislabel that beef.

The Montana cattle ranchers and processors that we talked with are in favor of this mandatory COOL labeling.

They say that it would give them a better price for their beef, and would give consumers transparency in the grocery store.

- Yeah, there's probably 50+ animals hanging right at the moment.

- [AJ] Bill Jones runs Montana Premium Processing Co-op in Havre, that serves roughly 70 cattle producers on the Hi-Line.

Their customers sell to small grocery stores, restaurants, and direct to consumer.

- As you see, they're taking each part apart and getting the actual products.

What you see laying on the table there right now is a couple of flat irons, and this is going for a restaurant application.

So they're going to hand-cut the exact size of steak they want out of that.

To have a facility like this, a USDA-inspected processing facility where the co-op member owners can bring their animals to be processed so that they can do direct-to-consumer marketing, is super big, especially for the lean years.

- [AJ] Their enterprise is one of 39 USDA-inspected meat processing plants in the state, and is supported by the Farmers Union.

One of their customers is Big Sandy Area rancher, Vance Butler.

- He loves a back scratch.

- [AJ] He invests a lot in raising his cattle locally and doesn't think it's fair for the big packers to put USA labels on foreign beef.

He believes that Country of Origin Labeling would set his product apart from the cheaper options.

- It's nice to be able to get a premium dollar for your animals if they know where it's coming from.

- [AJ] Most beef labels in large grocery stores will show their weight, their price, but rarely their origin.

The labels from this processing facility are so specific, they show the Montana ranch where the cow came from.

Butler and most producers are getting a good return on their beef right now because the prices are high across the market.

He's hoping that if the market changes, he'll still have a loyal customer base that will hold up well against cheaper beef that has labels from foreign countries.

- Prices drop, I'm going to hold my prices, and the people that are buying beef from me aren't going to argue with me.

They're going to say, "Oh, we like your beef and we know when we can get it."

- [AJ] Jones says that all the meat they process is raised in Montana.

He believes that COOL would benefit his producers, but he understands that the label could be complicated for bigger facilities.

- One box is all American and the other box, let's say, was born in America, fed in Canada, harvested in America.

Now you literally have to stop partway through your just average daily production.

You have to reconfigure your label, which takes 10, 15, 20 minutes depending on who's doing it.

So it's very cumbersome.

Do I think we need it?

Yeah, I think we need it.

- [AJ] Jones's facility opened in 2022 and is one of the many helping beef processing make a comeback in Montana after much of the state's packing facilities closed during consolidation in the 20th century.

- Not having COOL only benefits the big four packers, and it's at the expense of the producers, and it's at the expense of consumers.

And so these four large packers, they have total concentration of this.

They control the markets.

They take in product from Brazil, Mexico, that don't raise their livestock to the same standard that we do here in the United States.

(corral clanks) - [AJ] Walter Schweitzer is the president of the Montana Farmers Union and a rancher himself.

(cow moos) - Go on after mama.

- [AJ] He believes that local producers and processors should be rewarded for their efforts with the COOL label.

- Truth and labeling.

Let the consumers know where their products come from.

You know, we have Country of Origin Labeling for all other food products, fruits, vegetables, nuts, coffee, seafood, lamb, poultry, everything but beef and pork.

- [AJ] Unlike the local cattle producers and processors, the big four have access to cheap, foreign beef.

They can import it, process it at a US facility, and then market it as a more expensive US product.

Schweitzer says that companies combine foreign beef with US beef, and it's been a lucrative loophole in the current beef market.

- I mean, beef prices are historically high right now.

When we've had high historical US beef prices, we've tended to import more from other countries.

And it kind of makes sense why we would, as consumers don't want to pay those high prices and, you know, retailers need to find lower-priced beef to sell to their customers.

And so they're more likely to find it in other countries.

- [AJ] This leaves many local cattle producers with a tough choice.

Most either sell their cattle to the big four at a potentially lower price or process it themselves and try to sell their beef at a higher price, side by side, against cheaper foreign beef that still may look like a product of USA.

- And so, that's where I think a lot of the push for the Country of Origin Labeling Act has come from, is that, you know, that insight from producers that we could get a lot more if we could differentiate our product with a product of the USA label on it and let it compete against, you know, a product that doesn't start or, you know, is from the US.

- [AJ] The US did in fact have Country of Origin Labeling, but it was repealed by Congress in 2016 after the World Trade Organization ruled the law discriminated against foreign beef.

- If you're running a meat processing facility, you're going to incur additional costs when you start to take on those animals.

And so, you know, they're trying to kind of run a business just like anyone else.

And what they started to observe was that Canadian and Mexican animals were not being processed at some of those large facilities.

So they were, you know, turned away.

And it was really because when you start to put these labels in place, you have to process kind of all together.

And so, you've got to segregate along those lines.

So, from what I understand, you know, they showed that there was a cost that was being borne onto the processors.

- And so, they made a ruling that if we continued to label our meats with Country of Origin Labeling that Canada and Mexico could exercise retaliatory tariffs.

And so that, you know, when that happened, that was 10 years ago, and tariffs, retaliatory tariffs, it was kind of like the third rail.

So Congress repealed it on beef and pork only.

Our cattle herd has shrunk since then.

We've lost a lot of ranching neighbors since then.

- [AJ] Now, there's a new push to reinstate COOL.

Last October, Congresswoman Harriet Hageman of Wyoming reintroduced a bipartisan bill for the Country of Origin Labeling Enforcement Act.

The bill aims to prohibit retailers from designating the United States as the country of origin of foreign beef.

It also enforces a penalty of $5,000 per pound of beef that's mislabeled.

Last November, representative Zinke signed on to co-sponsor the bill.

In a press release statement, he says that, "If it is marketed as American beef, it should be born, raised, and processed here at home."

Zinke and his team did not respond to multiple interview requests for this story.

However, Schweitzer says he was one of the ranchers to sit down with him and discuss the possibility of supporting this bill.

- We met with Congressman Zinke at his home in Whitefish, on the back deck, and visited with him at length, answered a lot of his questions and concerns, and we finished up that conversation and he says, "You know what?

I think I'm going to support COOL this time."

Now, remember, he was in Congress when they repealed COOL, and he was one of the votes that killed COOL.

But his comments to us is that, at that time, tariffs were kind of a big deal, but they don't really mean much anymore today.

- [AJ] Over in the Senate, Senator John Thune introduced a bill in parallel that aims to put COOL labeling back in place.

Proponents of the bill in Congress believed that the changing climate in trades and tariffs mean that COOL could survive a challenge.

- I think if we revisited the WTO ruling, it wouldn't stand up, and we would find out that it was a flawed argument.

And... you know, really, the WTO in the current trade environment has almost become irrelevant.

- [AJ] We reached out to the big four companies, JBS, Tyson, Cargill, and Marfrig, for comment on the enforcement of product USA labeling, as well as COOL.

We did not receive a response from them by deadline.

For consumers, the question remains, what effect will COOL have on their wallets?

There are a lot of factors that go into price, like supply and demand, but Belasco says it's likely that COOL could impact pricing.

- Yeah, I mean, most of the past economic studies have shown that Country of Origin Labeling would increase the price of beef products.

And, you know, the real question is, if consumers are willing to pay for that, you know, label, then they would be willing to pay more for those higher-priced products.

- Schweitzer believes that COOL will benefit consumers in the long run.

- I think we could rebuild a robust regional processing here in Montana, where we grow our food locally, process and package it locally, to be eaten by our neighbors.

And I think if you talk to most Montanans, they would like that.

- [AJ] Back at the processing facility, Butler makes reservations with Jones for future processing days at the co-op, as their books fill up fast.

- Like the 13th.

Would that work?

- How many?

- Two.

- [AJ] Ultimately, Jones says that COOL labeling could help consumers make informed choices about where to spend their hard earned money.

- You know, the main thing is just the knowledge of where they want to spend their dollars.

So we're all going to spend our dollars and we should, I think, in America, be educated to spend them where we want to support, what we want to support.

So that's the main thing.

They can't support American if they don't know that it's American.

(tape crackles) - [AJ] For Impact, I'm AJ Williams.

- While the two bills work their way through Congress, 11 attorneys general, including Montana's Austin Knudsen, have joined a lawsuit against the big four meat packers.

They're alleging that the meat packers misbranded the beef and caused serious financial damage to cattle ranchers in their states.

While more and more Montana school districts are grappling with the drawbacks of cell phones in schools, beyond the concern that phones are a distraction while learning, there's growing evidence that cell phone use impacts mental health.

Joining me now is Montana PBS's Hannah Kearse, she talked with several school districts in the state.

They're exploring some cell phone restrictions.

What are some of these mental health issues educators are concerned about?

- So schools are looking at the growing rates of anxiety and depression in the youth, and they're worried.

And so, as they're seeing more evidence that is linked with cell phones and mental health, they're asking about what more they can do.

We talked with nearly half a dozen districts and they agree that something needs to change, but there are mixed feelings among students, teachers, and parents.

(screen whooshes) Like many high school seniors, Tayla Truden's final semester includes a lot of electives, classes like Ceramics 2, where students replicate historic artifacts, learning the history behind them, plus the ancient craft of pottery making.

These kinds of classes are more hands-on, so naturally students are tapping and scrolling on their phones less.

- Well, I don't really scroll in class.

I'm also a senior, so I take lots of electives.

So we're doing hands-on things, so there's not really a need to grab your phone.

- [Hannah] Schools the country are grappling with how cell phones are impacting student learning, both academically and socially.

In Montana, it's up to each school district to decide what its cell phone policy looks like.

In Bozeman, high schoolers can use cell phones during non-instructive times, like lunch and passing periods.

But that changes fall 2026.

Bozeman superintendent, Casey Bertram, says the district is trying to create a school environment that better supports students' mental health needs.

- We feel like we've already addressed the classroom distractions and we're thinking more about, you can call it distractions outside of the classroom in the hallways and common areas to really give our kids a break.

- [Hannah] The district is still figuring out what the new policy will look like.

And to help envision it, they put together a working group of students, teachers, administrators, parents, and community partners.

They looked at youth mental health data and findings in social psychologists Jonathan Haidt's book, "The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness."

Tayla Truden was among the 16 individuals in that work group.

- I think it's really important that we take away the phones, not only for the academic aspect.

I think a lot of the district employees really focused on the academic aspect and kids not being distracted by their phones.

But I think students really focused on the social aspect of it, like even just in the hallways and talking.

When kids are on their phone, they're not communicating and they're not connecting with each other.

- [Hannah] Many of her classmates acknowledge some of the negative impacts cell phones push into their lives, but they still have doubts about a cell phone-free high school.

- I think it would definitely help with learning and like maybe grades would go up and everything, but a lot of the time, I think kids would just try and find ways to like work around it and spend more time doing that than actual school.

- So from a student council perspective, kids are way less involved in activities.

I think, back then, all these school events used to be really exciting, school spirit used to be up.

But if we're running a pep assembly, half the kids are just on their phones.

- [Hannah] Their ceramics teacher, Patrick Hoffman, has been teaching ceramics at Bozeman High School for just over 20 years.

His love for clay helped form his teaching style.

- I'm trying to build curiosity and interest in what they're passionate about.

They see me nerding out about clay all the time.

I think that that comes off as, "This is what I love.

What do you love?"

(water swishing) - [Hannah] Hoffman says the gritty clay water helps keep students' hands off their cell phones during his class, but he sees them changing the school environment.

- You see a group of students all sitting with each other but not engaging, and they're all on a device.

They want to be on those devices when they have an opportunity to get on a device, passing periods or lunch.

That's just how it is.

But you still hear laughter, it's not like it's a silent hallway, right?

You still hear engagement and students laughing, and being in groups and talking, and that's why, you know, I have to give them a little bit of credit.

They're still being kids.

- [Hannah] That in-person connection is exactly what the Bozeman School District hopes to strengthen with a new phone policy this fall.

- When you use the term distraction in relationship to cell phone, it's typically been used about being distracted from education.

You could also use that in terms of the negative impacts of social media and cell phone use create distractions in our kids' brains.

- [Hannah] Researchers say that around the age of high school, a brain system linked to emotion and risk-taking becomes highly active.

Meanwhile, the brain's decision-making and self-control system is developing more slowly.

This developmental stage is the setting for University of Montana professor of psychology, Rachel Severson's work.

- When we think about, are teens always able to make the best decisions for themselves?

Those are all things, those are skills they're developing.

We know that with those systems, that once you start putting in a social component to it, individuals are generally more willing to take greater risks.

- [Hannah] The Bozeman School District says the correlation of worsening mental health and problematic cell phone use among the youth is compelling.

However, studies show that the effects school cell phone policies have on student mental well-being currently have conflicting results.

- Some evidence suggesting that it is improving their mental well-being because they're not having that chatter that is then bleeding over into the face-to-face interactions.

However, the kids themselves are reporting that they feel worse.

So, we're kind of getting this mixed bag of evidence that not all kids are feeling better as a result of having these policies that are limiting their use during the school day.

- [Hannah] Bozeman School District surveys show the rate of its high schoolers reporting depression symptoms, like prolonged feelings of sadness or hopelessness that causes them to lose interest in usual activities, has been trending upward since 2011.

And surveys from the Department of Health and Human Services shows national rates for depression among 12 to 17-year-olds more than doubling over the last decade.

And in their latest survey, one in five adolescents between the ages of 12 and 17 reported having moderate to severe symptoms of anxiety.

Some of this self-reported data could be linked to a broader cultural shift of society being more open about mental health.

But more than a decade of research from Common Sense Media has found that phones are constant companions for teens and are demanding their attention.

- Kids are getting on average like 250+ notifications a day, and those are distracting, right?

And I think that not only when they happen, but kids are also kind of anticipating that a notification might come.

So that's where I think that that's where it's taking some of those cognitive resources.

And there's both kind of excitement, like, "Oh, I got a notification," but also like, "Oh, now I have to respond."

I think that those pieces make cell phones a broader issue.

- [Hannah] While research is linking cell phone use to mental health issues, cell phones also come with benefits.

And few Montana high schools are removing cell phones from their campuses altogether.

- A lot of feedback from parents around emergency situations, which we know that in emergencies, we need kids to be able to access their devices that they have.

And so we're building out what it's going to look like for that to happen.

And at this point, are leaning towards just put it in your backpack.

- [Hannah] But communication concerns go beyond emergencies.

Many high school phone policies reflect how involved cell phones have become in everyone's daily communication.

That's why Belgrade High School, just down the road from Bozeman, plans on continuing to allow students to use their phones outside of class.

And Belgrade High School math teacher, Erin Nolte, wonders if the policy is really teaching students to manage their cell phone use.

- I think that absolutely cell phones are connected to mental health, but again, why are we not like teaching kids how to deal with this instead of just taking it away?

- [Hannah] Montana School Boards Association says a little over half of Montana's roughly 400 school districts have a cell phone policy, and most of them restrict cell phones in the classroom.

But in Belgrade, Nolte says it also removed a useful tool in her classroom.

- So for me, when you take a cell phone away, I now lose the ability to do quick technology quizzes or Kahoot little games, something that is interactive for the kids and can be fun, and I can learn where they're at with their math skills instantaneously.

- [Hannah] And back in Bozeman, Hoffman also acknowledges the loss of this valuable tool in his classroom.

- I want to see phones as a tool, but I also understand what we're trying to do.

So, something has to change, right?

- [Hannah] The desired change many Montana school districts are hoping for in their new phone policies will take a collective effort from parents and teachers.

- Right, we can only control the environment that we have control of in the moment.

And I'm willing to engage at a higher level, come to class with more energy.

Part of what we're being asked, I think, in a bigger way is to hit reset.

Let's try again, right?

But that doesn't mean that it's going to continue on beyond the walls of the school.

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

- [Hannah] It will also take a collective effort from students.

- Say the younger classmen at Bozeman High definitely disagree with this, and they don't really see the point of this, and they think it's unfair.

They're coming out of middle school and I think they're really looking forward to having their phones in high school.

But I think the older classmen kind of have seen over the years how this has affected us, and they think that it's important for the younger classmen.

- [Hannah] For Impact, I'm Hannah Kearse.

- Montana does not have a statewide law on cell phone use in schools.

So for now, school districts are tackling the issue individually.

But across the nation, more than 31 states do have restrictions already in place or in the works.

That's all the time we have for this episode of Impact.

You can watch previous episodes on our website, YouTube channel, or PBS app.

If you have a story idea for our journalists or feedback, send us an email at impact@montanapbs.org.

I'm Anna Rau.

Thanks for joining us.

We'll see you next time.

(pensive music) (pensive music continues) - [Announcer] Major funding for Impact comes from the Greater Montana Foundation, encouraging communication on issues, trends, and values of importance to Montanans.

Funding also comes from viewers like you, who are friends of Montana PBS.

Thank you.

(bright music)